MidOS Research Protocol

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'signal an action' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read/write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on invocation (e.g., side effects), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by a parameter list. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a coordination tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all 4 parameters and providing basic semantics: 'action' with example types, 'topic' as task name, 'summary' as brief description, and 'affects' as optional files/resources. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail formats or constraints more.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'Signal[s] an action to the multi-instance coordination pool,' which provides a basic verb+resource. However, it's vague about what 'multi-instance coordination pool' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pool_status' or 'hive_status,' which might relate to coordination. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'pool_signal' over 'pool_status' or other coordination-related tools. The description only lists parameters without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.